San Francisco’s naked protest and the ethics of public nudity

In recent months it has become increasingly common to see men walking around San Francisco’s Castro District completely naked. You might assume this is illegal, but no — there is no law against public nudity in San Francisco, unless that nudity also involves “lewd thoughts or acts.” (In practice, what that means is that unless you have an erection or are masturbating, it is OK to expose yourself in San Francisco.)

But the ever-escalating recent increase in public nudists spurred S.F. supervisor Scott Wiener to propose new legislation requiring naked people to sit on towels when using public facilities, and also to cover their nether regions while eating in restaurants — so that other residents won’t have to come into contact with whatever bodily excretions that might result from sitting down pants-free.

Well, as luck would have it, the more politically-minded of the public nudists had already scheduled a pro-nudity protest just on general principles, but the timing was perfect to make it into a photo op for the newly proposed towel law.

Needless to say, I was at Saturday’s protest, camera in hand.

I had originally intended to make this a lighthearted post, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt the protest merited serious analyis.

So, below, you will find discussions about the purpose of clothing, public hygiene, exhibitionism, community standards and morality — and lots of pictures of naked men. If you don’t want to see the pictures, stop reading now.

(Note: This is the G-rated version of this report, with all photos blurred out where appropriate; if you want to see the X-rated version, in which all the pictures are uncensored, click here.)

The protest was held in a small plaza at the intersection of Castro, 17th, and Market streets in San Francisco. While the Castro District is well-known as a sort of outdoor gay-themed tourist attraction, it is still a “real” part of the urban landscape, just like any other part of the city, with street lights and gas stations and trolley tracks and laws. Traffic streamed by as the nudists (all men) began to assemble, several of whom were carrying protest signs saying things like “Nude is not lewd” and “Get your hate off my body.”

It was cloudy and a bit chilly, but that didn’t stop about 40 or 50 men from standing around naked, and posing for the phalanx of photographers who had assembled across the tracks.

Local alternative newspaper The Bay Guardian saw a chance for a publicity stunt and produced “Butt Guardian” towels so that everyone could be in compliance with the new anti-excretion ordinance.

Bay Guardian employees handed them out to all takers; if you want one of your own they even have an online version you can print out “to soothe the heebie jeebies induced in some shrinking violets about stray hairs and other hysterical anal imaginings covering the seats of our fair city.”

The quote above got me thinking about the very purpose of clothing, something I had never really pondered until now. Humans wear clothing, obviously, to keep us warm in cold climates. But clothing has several other functions as well:

1. To protect the wearer from the elements — cold temperatures, blazing sun, wind, etc.;
2. To cover up various body parts which cultural norms have deemed taboo;
3. To advertise one’s status, role, class or position in society;
4. To prevent the transmission of potentially unsanitary excretions and fluids by enclosing the anal and genital regions.

And this is the source of the conflict: Wiener’s law merely addresses the issue of public hygiene in point 4 above — but the nudists are protesting the cultural norms in point 2. Yet no matter how successful they are in smashing cultural norms, they still can’t escape the general consensus that day-to-day urban nudity has pubic health consequences.

The nudists’ reply is that the “pubic health” argument is merely a smokescreen to justify puritanical repression. The anti-nudity advocates are being dishonest, the protesters argue; opposition to public nakedness is not based on concern about transmissible diseases, but rather on old-fashioned prudery.

While that may be true, I counter with this: The San Francisco public nudists are also being dishonest; there is indeed a sexual component to their behavior, and they are exhibitionists using politics to justify their thrill-seeking.

Want proof? Keep reading.

The naked protest originally had nothing to do with the hubbub over the new towel legislation; it was in fact basically just a launch party for the Folsom Street Fair (advertisements for which were visible all around the intersection, as seen in the photo above):

The event, which had been scheduled before Wiener’s proposal was announced, was part of the unofficial celebrations leading up to the annual Folsom Street Fair, billed as the world’s largest leather and fetish event.

Now, I didn’t cover this year’s Folsom Street Fair (held yesterday — too cold!), but I have covered it in the past, and — trust me on this — it is a free event held on city streets at which people unabashedly have sex in public. (Actually, you don’t have to trust me — you can simply click on my EXTREMELY NSFW report about the 2007 Folsom Street Fair and see the proof for yourself.)

In that report, as part of a caption for a series of photos showing a man masturbating in public, I made the following observation:

The Folsom Street Fair is primarily a festival of sexual fetishes — bondage, sado-machochism, animal fantasies, and so on — yet the pre-eminent sexual fetish at the Folsom event is the one least discussed: exhibitionism. This man, for example, is an exhibitionist, as were a great many others at the fair. Exhibitionists derive sexual pleasure from having people watch them engage in sex. You, the observer, are a participant in their sex act, whether you want to be or not. That’s the point, the source of the “thrill.” If you attend the Folsom Street Fair, to a certain extent you are knowingly agreeing to be “visually raped” and to participate in the exhibitionist sex of others, just by being there to view it. Almost always, when someone at the fair began to masturbate, a crowd would form to watch: and by so doing would voluntarily become second-hand participants in the solo sex act — just as you the viewer are doing right now.

But does the same argument apply when the exhibitionist is not actively masturbating and doesn’t even have an erection? Could he be secretly getting a thrill and involving passersby in his sexual fantasies anyway?

No, according to The Bay Guardian, which has leapt to the defense of the public nudists.

If these guys were opening a trench coat and exposing themselves to bystanders in a supermarket parking lot we’d call them creeps. But if they sit on public chairs and expose themselves to bystanders, they’re defenders of free speech. Here’s some free speech – when moms and dads walk their kids to school, they don’t want to see you naked.

Actually, I’ve often walked my daughter to school along Castro Street, and I don’t care whether people are naked or not. Neither does she. My kids are San Francisco city kids; it’s all a big Whatever. And the naked guys in the Castro, mostly middle-aged men, aren’t “exposing themselves” in the way of a sex offender who gets off on it; they don’t confront anyone, or jump in front of anyone, or try to force anyone to look at them. They aren’t fucking in the streets. They’re just walking around (and sitting down) without clothes on.

Whatever.

The Bay Guardian‘s argument basically comes down to this: If these guys aren’t parading around naked for the thrills, then they aren’t deriving any sexual pleasure from it, and thus there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing. And that is also exactly what San Francisco’s extremely lax laws about pubic nudity say: unless you are engaging in “lewd thoughts or acts” then you can be naked in public.

But hang one one minute. It’s pretty easy to identify a “lewd act,” but how can we judge whether someone has a “lewd thought” while showing his naked body to you? Presumably, this is a legal euphemism for “getting a hard-on”: If a guy has an erection, the law presumes he is engaging in “lewd thoughts”; and (here’s the key) if he doesn’t have an erection, that’s proof that his thoughts are pure.

But there’s another way we can assess their motivations aside from measuring the engorgement levels of their penises. Look at the sign above and the sign in the first photo; both reveal that the protest was organized on a Web site called nude-in.blogspot.com. If you visit the site (mild NSFW warning), you’ll see that the protest’s Web page — and hence the protest itself — was actually masterminded by Bare Naked in Public, which according to the protest page’s own sidebar “is the most all inclusive male exhibitionist destination on the Internet.”

And if you dare to click on the VERY NSFW Bare Naked in Public home page, you will finally see the truth (and a whole lot more) revealed: San Francisco’s urban nudists are exhibitionists who derive sexual thrills from exposing themselves in public.

There. Someone had to say it.

And if that’s true, then they are indeed breaking the city’s anti-nudity ordinance because they do think “lewd thoughts” while parading around naked.

Common sense tells us the same thing. As this picture shows, the spot chosen for the nude protest is basically on a traffic island in the middle of an extremely busy intersection; trolley cars filled with commuters and tourists run immediately adjacent to the “park,” while a six-lane major traffic artery runs along the other side; and one of the city’s most crowded pedestrian streets leads right to the same intersection. Why choose that particular spot, not just for Saturday’s protest but for daily nudity year-round? The goal quite obviously is to be seen by as many people as possible. The nudists claim they just want to be left alone and be free to go about their daily lives with no clothes on. But if that were the case, they wouldn’t purposely congregate in crowded places.

La de da. Don’t pay any attention to me. I’m just standing here!

Furthermore: San Francisco is not a particularly warm town. To quote Mark Twain: “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.” No one in their right mind under normal circumstances would want to be naked in San Francisco. You’d have to have a reason — like being an exhibitionist.

If you truly just wanted to be naked, you can be naked at home. Or at San Francisco’s city-sanctioned nude beach (Baker Beach). If if you wanted to be naked amongst other naked people, there are several nudist colonies in the Bay Area and northern California. But no. These protesters and urban nudists don’t simply want to be naked in private or be naked around other naked people; they want to be naked around clothed people. Because that’s where the sexual thrill originates; violating a taboo. Being naked where nakedness is normal doesn’t count; eliciting shock or interest from unwitting strangers is the whole point.

To end on an upbeat note: one of the protesters set up an easel right on the corner of Castro and 17th and began painting.

His masterwork depicted UFOs landing and naked humans running out to meet their alien saviors. On the table next to his easel (directly behind him in this photo) were several books about extra-terrestrials and UFO invasions.

Now, see, this guy might legitimately claim that he is naked in public for a completely non-lewd reason — to welcome our alien brothers when they arrive. But the other protesters have revealed not just their genitals but their real motivations.

One final point: What is the feminist position on all this?

Last month I covered yet another San Francisco protest, this one called Slutwalk, where this photo was taken. And the message at that protest was “Unwanted Exposure to Scrotum Is Never OK!”

Why are only feminists allowed to point this out?

Click here to view the 38 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

38 Comments, 24 Threads

1.
rduke

Oh god….dirty smelly naked old hippies….so glad I wasn’t there….can’t believe attention was paid to them and can’t believe cops didn’t haul them in (not 4 being nude…but just generally defying everything that is good and right about civilization) Ick

One of the things that always stands out about your photo essays covering nudity in the Bay Area, Zombie, is that it’s never the beautiful people in San Francisco or Berkeley who are standing around airing their bits and pieces. The above photos are enough to put one off nudity forever, in any way, shape or form. Ick.

If they were actually attractive, they wouldn’t need to undress to get attention. Their ugliness (and tinyness) is proof in itself that they are doing it for the attention, and not simply as a statement of “free speech.” And the protest’s site “Buck Naked in Public,” proves that it has a sexual component for them, self-identifying as “exhibitionists.”

I agree with Zombie and I always thought the whole free speech thing was a load of baloney. When you walk by them (be you man or woman…I guess it doesn’t matter to these weirdos) the naked guys try and make eye contact to leer at you. It’s definitely pervy leering, and not something normal nudists do.
And, you know, there ARE normal nudists. I know a guy who really just hates clothing. He’s naked in his own home and at the beach, but just wears non-constricting clothing to work and grocery shopping. He definitely doesn’t show himself to people who don’t want to see him because he’s a NUDIST, not a jerk.

you’re all just a bunch of prudes. prolly just got out of church. what i want to know is why you can’t have an erection. this is literally thought police. what is the real rational difference? there is no difference. unless you just got out of your little church. if we are all just animals, why can’t we act like it?

California gave us Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Tom McClintock, Darrell Issa, and many other politicians and leaders you probably like. 40+% of the state is conservative. Earthquakes don’t discriminate — they take everyone with them.

There are easier ways to fix things in California than to wish for everyone to die.

I live here in SF and am sick of being painted by someone’s broad brush of ignorance. The people I know who live here in SF, and that includes the gay people I know, think these guys are creepy and a bunch of attention mongers. Please don’t associate the actions of these clowns with most of the population of San Francisco.

Turnabout being fair play, I certainly don’t think everyone in Arizona is just like and a supporter of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I also would never wish fire and brimstone to rain upon Arizona because of Joe Arpaio.

How long before these creeps are strolling around tourist areas like Fisherman’s Wharf or walking past elementary schools on weekday mornings?…These people are like Rudy Giuliani’s proverbial “broken windows” – if you don’t fix ‘em you’ll see more and more. They’re having similar problems in public parks around Seattle. Nudists – all men – gather in parks and soon no one allows their children to go the park anymore because there are naked men walking around…..Honestly, if we continue to allow this kind of crap, civilization is finished.

I hate to advocate violence, but if a naked man walks down the street or through the park past my 5 year old daughter I might very well knock the block off the bastard.

You ask for a feminist position. I’m a radical feminist, and sometimes-host of a feminist radio program. I am assuming you are asking this question honestly, and not doing that thing where right-wing men demand that feminists somehow account for why we don’t stop men on the left from acting like this (as though we have that kind of power). Left-wing men hate feminists, too. Visit Huffington Post sometime to see what liberal men think of feminists and women. How many articles are there on women’s rights vs. “Click here to vote for the best nip slip picture!” and “How to keep your man happy after he cheats on you”. Hint: the ratio makes me despair.

The gay movement has a lot of issues that come into conflict with feminism, quite separate from the civil rights issues of marriage equality and so forth (which has no conflict at all with feminism). But these sorts of events show an underbelly of the gay movement that is hostile to women and sexual politics in a way that has been, politically-speaking, so bound up with the civil rights movement (quite on purpose) that you can’t argue against this without being accused of arguing against the civil rights issues, even though rationally that makes no sense. Feminists who have been pointing this out over the years have been ousted from the mainstream liberal politics (sometimes even mainstream feminist groups), even to the point of losing their tenures and being disinvited from conferences.

For instance, very similar to this and the Folsom Fair is the heated debate about whether male-to-female transsexuals should be permitted in all-female recovery spaces where quite often victims of rape seek sanctuary to heal. They (the transsexuals) are demanding it, and a lot of radical feminists are asking why and trying to resist for the protection of the women for whom the spaces were created. The questions get uncomfortable for mainstream leftward politics on this issue because it brings up what you are saying here — there IS a potential sexual element, and it IS encroaching on people who did not consent to it. Women are expected to step aside — even rape victims — in order to make room for men (most MTF transsexuals possess a sense of male privilege, if not the parts) who demand the “right” to do whatever they want without question because their satisfaction is more important than the mental health of women victims of male sexual violence.

But it’s very hard to argue because how does one “thought police” these exhibitionists you’ve photographed, or MTF transsexuals, to figure out whether they are wanting to access these spaces for sexual thrills. To find the answer, you have to go into THEIR spaces to find out what they talk about, like you did here. The answers are quite often as obvious as the link you posted to the exhibitionist website. But it’s considered impolitic to bring that up. Prudish, is often a word I get thrown at me. Hateful is the next word, if I still didn’t get the hint.

You probably noted a dearth of lesbians at these things, and that’s always a good clue to what’s really going on here. Lesbians tend to statistically and historically be much more active in actual civil rights events. They are some of the most important backbones of the feminist movement for a lot of reasons I won’t enumerate here. But creeping fetishism, porn, BDSM, exhibitionism, rape fantasies, and other such things have been so deeply entwined into the civil rights movement, and perversely, the most oppressed minorities with valid civil rights complaints (such as lesbian women and women of color) are usually silenced and dismissed, if not attacked by those who claim to be the “real” representatives of the movement — who are usually white men. Overwhelmingly in these pictures I see privileged white men. The fact that they are almost exclusively privileged white men is informative.

But how to untangle it? I don’t know the answer. It’s rather like the way fundamentalists have woven themselves inextricably with the libertarian political movement. Most rational right-leaning people I know find them intolerable as well, and know that they do a great deal of harm to the otherwise reasonable political right, but they don’t know how to kick them out of the tent because it would cause such sturm und drang. I know many libertarians/conservatives probably want to shout at the crazypants fundies, “Will you cut it out! You’re making our opponents point for them!” and yet you’re put in a position where you feel like you can’t really say anything because the political cost is too high. That is exactly the problem the left has with these folks. But what can you do? Feminists are shouted down whenever they point out the problems with this issue, and it’s not like conservative/right wing men are going to stand up for us — they dislike feminists more than gay men, so what do they care if we get shouted down? And leftist men like porn, so they don’t care either.

That leaves, rather ironically, only puritans who are willing to say anything and be heard, but then, their arguments are based on an arbitrary moral foundation that many people find objectionable and slippery-slope-ish, thus leaving this with no one who can articulate exactly what is wrong with this from an ETHICAL point of view, which is, quite simply the matter of consent that you point out. That is the feminist issue, in point of fact.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Much I agree with here. Rare and refreshing to hear from an honest feminist who doesn’t assume that those who are her presumptive political opponents must be idiots deserving only scorn and mockery.

I agree that both the “right” and the “left” are untenable alliances that cannot maintain for much longer. In fact, I think that the old political spectrum no longer really even exists, and have written about it extensively before. I think that a new ideological array will emerge from the old one, and perhaps when that happens we will find ourselves more “on the same side” than seems possible now.

Identity Politics is an anchor around the neck of left-leaning people, perhaps as pathological greed is weight on those who lean to the right.
I would like to state that the moral foundations of puritans arise from millennia long efforts to organize civil human society, rather than being arbitrary – although you may not agree with them.

You make me really question the context and content of the terms “radical” and “feminist.” You make my very conservative christian wife look like a radical feminist. And, since you seem so clued in to ethics & law: utilitarianism/relativism without any deontology/natural law is the recipie for what you smell cookin in your little “radical feminist” movement. Eat it up cuz God is dead!

Okay, we moved the gay bar outside. I notice no nekkid wimmins during all this. Coincidence? Oh yeah, none, that is to say *none* of these yops are going to appear in Playgirl. But then, they knew that already, didn’t they?

As I scrolled through the acres of flabby flesh, I was reminded of a friend’s hog farm. Except the hogs are more attractive. But then I came across a picture that Shocked, Shocked Me! $4.50/gallon for premium??!!! I’m staying on the east coast.

Wow, Woman. Thank you for your comments. As a socially conservative Christian woman, I am not very friendly to the feminist movement(as you pointed out), but I am grateful for what you had to say. The contradictions are glaring in the gay movement. They claim to want civil rights, but there is an aggressive sexual element that overtakes their message. And women are truly fearful of having transgender men in our bathrooms and other gender specific areas. Not because we think gays are icky, but because it puts women and girls in real danger (not even necessarily of physical attack, but a psychological one). Also, an assault takes place on the people that have to view these men in public places. My husband and I don’t let our daughters see him naked. If we did, most reasonable people would consider that a form of sexual abuse. Is it less abusive to make someone else’s little girl see you naked?

IMHO, this behavior is self-limiting; the situation will take care of itself. If this behavior spread and becomes commonplace there, either an ordinance will be passed prohibiting it or normal people will find someplace else to live. Then, business will decline, tax revenues will fall, and the city will have less money for its multitude of liberal expenditures — which eventually will mean that an ordinance will be passed, or the city will sink into oblivion, a lesson for all.

So, go for it, fat ugly naked guys. You’ll all get pretty much what you all deserve.

If an (alleged) sexual element is a reason for banning a dress code then many women will have to go nude because they won’t have anything else to wear! Same is true for a probably rather smaller proportion of men. How long before the cleavage police are formed? How far above the ankles will hemlines be allowed? As for trousers displaying that women have two legs – shock, horror.

On a more serious note, it is not coincidence that the USA, probably the most prudish country in the western world has several times the teenage abortion rate, about ten times the teenage pregnancy rate and several tens of times the sexually transmitted infection rate of for example Denmark. The correlation between prudish attitudes and appalling outcomes is near perfect and the mechanisms are well understood but still some people insist on promoting prudery. How many young people must die before society puts prejudice aside and stops promoting the prudish attitudes which result in such devastating outcomes?

It is not prudish to desire that all sexual activity be a private activity, and that people wear minimal clothing. It is simply setting up a non-sexual (not anti-sexual) public space safe for children and those wishing to not experience sexual behavior at that given time. This is in addition to the natural public hygiene issue, which even a nudist colony would need to deal with.

In other words, we are not interested in looking at your junk. Seriously, is wearing a set of boxers or briefs that bad?

That you’ve never really thought about the purpose of clothing until now shows clearly. Your analysis is laughable, and quickly digresses into the usual body shaming. Exhibitionism is not a dirty word my friend. Just because there is a large group of people who feel erotic gratification from this specific form of public intimacy, does not mean they are evil, or broken, or dangerous. It is A SYMPTOM of the current state of affairs, plain and simple. If you think these evil exhibitionists are just doing it, and only receive gratification because, its illegal or abnormal, then you should be MORE WILLING, NOT LESS to allow the normalization of public nudity. What thrill would there be for them then? They would have to find some other law to break (perhaps a dangerous one next time, perhaps not), or optimistically (from your apparent viewpoint) see their behavior for what it is, thus negating the arousal.

Its no wonder other countries think of the USA the way they do.At war we make our captives strip naked and masterbate in front of our female soilders , in september every year folsom street fair (a public event in which children are allowed to view) men are allowed to walk around masterbating cuming all over the streets ,even men haveing anal sex while crowd watches……Im begging to see these other countries point!!

DONT YOU THINK THIS TYPE OF THINK HAS GOTTEN A BIT OUT OF HAND…….WISE UP SAN FRANCISCO

First: Thank you zombie. You are the anonymous Michael Yon of imbedded truly independent REAL journalism in Northern California. Been at it about as long as he has been, too. Both of you keep yourselves out as much as possible and tell the story with as much background as possible. Outstanding! But that’s TWO independent journalists, sobering and infuriating at times to count how few there are. Thank you.

Second: a comment to “Woman.” I totally agree with your observation that white well off guys dominate the me-fests. As a parent of four young men and two young women, though I am still astounded at the lack of insight or depth about women as mothers and men as fathers, amongst the Left, the feminists and the gay worldview. Those may indeed be white privileged guys, but they are minority of a minority amongst men. Most men are NOT the two-dimensional rats they’ve been made out to be. I had to fight for my SONS in schools, to keep them from being abused by women with grudges, everything in schools now designed to denigrate young men. I have to FIGHT for my daughters to keep them from being abused by men AND WOMEN in schools. My sons now FIGHT for ALL of us, giving up this land of plenty to sleep in tents in war zones. Everyone ONE of their friends has what the Blind Side called, “Scored 98% on protective instincts.” They have a natural will to protect other men, protect women and especially little kids. HOw much did they work above and beyond the normal to make themselves better men, physically, mentally? How disturbing is the abuse they receive in return from their own countrymen and women who won’t put up with the discomforts and sacrifices. How inconsiderate are the women who stand in front of boys and young men and tell them they are no good, can’t be trusted. I hear it all the time. If the boys are not acknowledged for what they do right, then what should women who haranged them when they were innocent expect from them later? My sons are taught to respect their sisters, their sisters are taught to respect their brothers. It takes TWO.
As a parent raising children amongst all this, it’s the families that have to look away, the families that have to move out, the families that have to watch every school paper placed in front of their child because of the predation and be watchful. Yet when we worry and complain as other adults try to take advantage of kids – hardly a fair fight, so parents fight for their kids, we are maligned. When in human history have families been treated so poorly, have children been considered as “burdens?”
I don’t see “naked men” or “lesbians fretting about patriarchal males” but unbelieveably self-centered people, spending their lives talking about trivialities, minutia and how their lives are so hard, pushing on other people to say nothing while they engage in extremely intolerant bullying, no simple consideration that in the public square formal politeness on everyone’s part makes it run smoothly, for maximim COOPERATIVE interaction. The fact that SF is losing families steadily is proof of the hostile environment for raising chidlren. A world without children is dead. The SF community is becoming monolithic and intolerant of anything that doen’t conform. It is growing old, fewer and fewer newbies for new blood, a dying culture.
The rhetoric is all fog. There’s no giving, it’s all taking.